From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Aug 2 10:27: 9 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from jade.chc-chimes.com (jade.chc-chimes.com [216.28.46.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6A5115021; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:26:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from billf@jade.chc-chimes.com) Received: from localhost (billf@localhost) by jade.chc-chimes.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11945; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:27:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from billf@jade.chc-chimes.com) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:27:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Fumerola To: Warner Losh Cc: committers@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services In-Reply-To: <199908021721.LAA07176@harmony.village.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Warner Losh wrote: > I don't think we should change getportbyname. If the getportbyname > fails, see if a strtol returns a number, and if so use that. I don't > see what is so hard about doing that. I agree. The change should be made in inetd, not in getportbyname() > If someone wants to run a service on a port that it wasn't desinged > for, they can still do it today. I don't see what the argument > against this change could possibly be. There is no evil here. Changing getportbyname() would be, which is what was discussed before. -- - bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message